Category: 2016 Election Irregularities

2010 Consent decree definition, 3rd Circuit

The term “ballot security” is defined in the 2009 modification as follows: (3) . . . any program aimed at combatting voter fraud by preventing potential voters from registering to vote or casting a ballot. Such programs include, but are not limited to,6 the compilation of voter challenge lists by use of mailing or reviewing databases maintained by state agencies such as motor vehicle records, social security records, change of address forms, and voter lists assembled pursuant to the HAVA7;

Veasy v Abbott

“5. Legislative Drafting History Proponents touted SB 14 as a remedy for voter fraud, consistent with efforts of other states. As previously demonstrated, the evidence shows a tenuous relationship between those rationales and the actual terms of the bill.

The law accepted a limited pool of photo IDs for in-person voting, reduced the number of early voting days from seventeen to ten, eliminated same-day registration, eliminated preregistration for sixteen- and seventeen-year-olds, and banned out-of-precinct provisional voting.

Before ratifying the law, the state legislature had requested and considered racial data showing that black Americans disproportionately relied on all of the voting procedures the law eliminated or restricted and disproportionately used forms of identification the law excluded.

Voter ID

These efforts to implement a voter ID program- explicitly and obviously- a ballot security measure which the Republican party has agreed not to participate in. Further difficulties in obtaining specific or strict ID’s does represent a real restriction on poor folks. Plaintiff would be required upon changing addresses- to travel to his birth place, across several states, pay for it and back, again, for one identification point necessary to obtain an ID that would work even in relatively non-strict voter ID states. The cost would be approximately $120 dollars. For women who changed their name, the birth certificate itself might need to be changed, after a name change requiring in person trips to multiple locations, sometimes in different states, and thus possibly in the realm of $200+ dollars.

Here is an incomplete list of the Federal cases which are expressly ballot security initiatives in 2013-2016

One Wisconsin Institute v. Thomsen

Feldman v. Arizona

Lee v. Virginia Board of Elections

Common Cause v. Rucho

Ohio A. Philip Randolph Institute and NEOCH v. Husted

League of Women Voters v. Newby

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. The North Carolina State Board of Elections

Florida Democratic Party v. Detzner

Common Cause v. Kemp

Shelby vs Holder

Crosscheck

Kris Kobach of Kansas, is unquestionably a Republican and should be considered one for the sake of comparison to the Consent Decree. The initiation of the Crosscheck program in 2013- with several other Republican Secretaries of State- ostensibly to prevent the dubious threat of double voting- is clearly a ballot security initiative, creating voter challenge lists. It eventually grew to 29 states, 100 million records, and 7.2 million matches on their list. To be clear- at every level of the court system- by Democratic and Republican appointed judges alike have questioned the validity of wide spread voter fraud- an issue never demonstrated to be of valid or compelling state interest. Instead, it seems to be a rebranded mode of the same voter caging techniques used in the original Consent Decree and an area they agreed- multiple times- to stop.

It also put the voting records of no less than 100 Million Americans in the hands of an individual who has repeatedly ignored court orders. At a time when it is believed that campaigns microtargeted Facebook users, using illegally obtained data.. this is a question mark that should be examined.

The Interstate Crosscheck list is a cross state voter challenge list, of the kind specifically forbidden to the Republican party because of a 1981 Consent Decree, which due to rampant violations of vfelony

2016 Presidential Election Irregularities

In 2016 a remarkably close election culminated in a surprise upset in the Presidential elections-substantially outpacing polls in swing states- a red flag in international election monitoring.

The win was from 4 key swing states- amounted to less than 107,000 votes, out of 108,000,000 votes cast or .01% of the total, and ranging from .25% – 1% of the swing states.

Ms. Clinton- the popular vote winner by a large margin, nearly 3 million votes, lost by a significant margin in the electoral college.

The electoral college significantly dilutes the vote of people who live in larger states, which allows 62 >65 million–equal representation under the law?

40+ electors appear to have been unqualified because they were either:

a.) State employees in states which bar them from holding two or more representative positions,

b.) from outside of the districts they claimed to represent.

If upheld, this would leave no candidate with the necessary 270 Electoral votes to be President.

Congress under VP Joseph Biden refused to hear objections made by Representatives- the process requires both House Reps and Senators to challenge.

7.In 2016, the Republican party, and all agents and agencies in it’s sphere, were under a consent decree- a court monitored settlement which restricted any ballot security initiative- defined as compiling voter challenge lists to remove voters from the rolls or attempts to combat voter fraud without court preclearance.

The Republican Party has never requested court preclearance.

The RNC has been found to violate the consent decree, by the courts specifically 3 times, after the initial violations of Federal law that lead to the consent decree.

Kris Kobach of Kansas, a Republican party agent, rebuked by state and federal judge alike for attempting to illegally remove qualified voters under the NVRA is pending the application of a contempt of court charge for refusing a court order to put back on voter rolls voters he had taken off.

Was the creator of the Interstate Crosscheck program, which matches first and last names- sometimes birthdays, and flags people with the same names across states as double voters.

There are 7.2 million names(equivalent to 3% of the US population) on this list of possible “double voters”.7.2 million names under suspicion of a felony with the b evidence being similar names in different states.

Virginia purged 1/7th of their list based on Crosscheck.

If the rest of the 28 states followed suit-1 million people would have been purged.

For 2 examples, 450,000 voters on the Crosscheck list in Michigan- a surprise win for Mr. Trump by 13,000 votes- 590,000 on the North Carolina list- a win by 177,000 votes.

42 USC 1971- a racial discrimination statute which gives the Attorney General the ability order a .patterns and practices investigation was not initiate d, 2 cases nationally were found to have the requisite high bar of discriminatory intent,

A post-election study by Priorities USA, a Democratic super-PAC that supported Clinton, found that in 2016, turnout decreased by 1.7 percent in three states that adopted stricter voter ID laws but increased by 1.3 percent in states where ID laws did not change. Wisconsin’s turnout dropped 3.3 percent. If Wisconsin had seen the same turnout increase as states whose laws stayed the same, “we estimate that over 200,000 more voters would have voted in Wisconsin in 2016.”

From the Wisconsin recount report. “In a few precincts, vote totals were altered by more than 20%. In 646 of the state’s 3,500 precincts vote totals were changed by more than 1%–four times the margin currently in Wisconsin law that would allow a candidate to seek a free recount.”

There are 11 million citizens who were ineligible for federal voting in the United States in 2016.

4 million ( > 75% minority, 1.2% of the US population) of the American population in Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands because Congress has not either granted statehood or other method of apportioning in millions of American citizens have no federal representation under the law, for decades.

Puerto Ricans voted for US statehood in 2016.

Given the history of Baker v Carr, Wesberry v Sanders, and Reynolds v Sims, it could be said that the de facto role of the Courts is to initiate apportionment shifts; as legislatures exhibit an unlawful but predictable tendency to refuse to do so to maintain their own power and status quo.

Since the Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act, there were decisions in several states against the Republican party that would have had discriminatory effect- 2 were found to have met the much higher legal bar of discriminatory intent to suppress the votes of minorities.

these decisions were for voter id laws- and were promoted as ballot security intiatives to prevent voter fraud, which the Republican party had

6 million Americans- (2.47% of the US Voting age Population) are unable to vote because they have been disenfranchised by their states due to prison time.

14-2 Amendment apportionment correction has never been addressed, nor the common interpretation examined- as it was enacted during reconstruction to prevent southern states from disenfranchising black voters- that it now actually disenfranchises more black voters than freed slave voters at the time it was enacted, requires review..